For IT operations within medical device manufacturing, the world of cryptography presents a unique set of challenges that often diverge significantly from the familiar landscape of corporate or enterprise IT. While the fundamental principles remain, their implementation and the considerations surrounding them are shaped by the distinct characteristics and critical nature of medical devices.

This isn’t simply about scaling down enterprise solutions; it’s about a fundamental shift in perspective driven by patient safety, stringent regulatory demands, and the often resource-constrained and long-lived nature of medical devices. Let’s delve into the technical nuances that differentiate these cryptographic realms.

PKI: Trust Anchors in a Constrained World

In enterprise IT, PKI often revolves around well-established internal or third-party CAs, managing certificates for users, servers, and applications within a relatively controlled network environment. Device lifecycles are typically shorter, and updates are more frequent.

However, for medical devices, PKI assumes a more intricate form, demanding tailored strategies. It’s important to note that private CAs, those operated within a specific organization, are generally exempt from the increasing scrutiny surrounding the broad use of public CAs. This distinction is crucial as we consider the unique needs of medical devices. In essence, the controlled environment, stringent regulatory landscape, unique operational constraints, and long lifecycles of medical devices necessitate a more tailored and controllable approach to PKI than what public CAs can typically offer. Private CAs provide the flexibility, control, and customization required to meet these specific demands, ultimately contributing to enhanced security and patient safety.

For medical devices, PKI takes on a more intricate form.

• Controlled Ecosystems: Medical devices often operate within well-defined and managed hospital networks. Unlike the open internet, the communication pathways and interacting entities are known. Employing a private CA allows manufacturers and healthcare providers to establish a closed loop of trust specifically designed for their environment, affording greater control and minimizing the attack surface.
• Flexible Trust Models: Unlike a centralized enterprise PKI, medical device ecosystems might involve a more distributed trust model. Devices could rely on manufacturer-embedded root certificates, potentially with limited or no ability for end-users (e.g., hospitals) to manage the root of trust. This necessitates robust security around the initial key injection and certificate provisioning during manufacturing.
• Long-Lived Certificates: Devices can have lifespans of 10+ years, requiring careful consideration of certificate validity periods, algorithm obsolescence, and the feasibility of certificate updates in the field. Revocation mechanisms need to be lightweight and reliable even on intermittently connected devices.
• Infrequent/ Unpreditable Connectivity: Infrequent and unpredictable network connectivity hinders consistent certificate validation, revocation checks, and timely security updates, creating vulnerabilities in the PKI trust chain.
• Supply Chain Security: The PKI trust chain must extend to the manufacturing process. Compromises during device production could lead to compromised device identities. Secure key generation and certificate injection at the point of manufacture are paramount.
• Hospital Complexity: Medical devices often involve a complex supply chain. If hospitals are responsible for PKI, managing trust relationships with various manufacturers and vendors becomes significantly more complicated. Additionally, PKI best practices and regulatory requirements are constantly evolving. Hospitals may lack the resources and expertise to stay current and adapt their PKI infrastructure accordingly.
  If your medical device PKI currently leans heavily on publicly trusted CAs, we encourage you to reevaluate your certificate strategy. Embracing a private CA approach can ultimately lead to a more secure, resilient, and compliant ecosystem for your medical devices.

Asymmetric Keys: Balancing Security and Resource Limitations

Enterprise IT often leverages robust asymmetric algorithms with larger key sizes, backed by ample processing power.

Medical devices face a different reality:

• Algorithm Selection: While strong algorithms are essential, the computational overhead of algorithms with very large key sizes can be prohibitive for embedded devices with limited processing power and battery life. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) offering comparable security with small key sizes, has emerged as a more suitable choice for many medical device applications, but these concerns are still relevant as we inch close to a post-quantum world.
• Key Size Considerations: Striking a balance between sufficient security and performance is crucial. Choosing the right ECC curve and key size should be the result of careful analysis of the device’s capabilities.
• Lack of Hardware Security Modules (HSMs): While enterprise environments utilize HSMs for critical key storage, medical devices increasingly integrate dedicated secure hardware like SEs or Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) within their System-on-a-Chip (SoC) to protect private keys. These offer hardware-backed key generation and storage, enhancing security but adding complexity to the device architecture and manufacturing process.

Self Signed Certificates: A Necessity, Not a Luxury

Self-signed certificates are often used for internal testing, development environments, or low-risk internal communications where the organization has a degree of inherent trust in its own infrastructure. The use of self-signed certificates in medical devices carries a much higher risk.

• Lifecycle Management: Certificates need to be securely provisioned, regularly updated, and promptly revoked if a device is compromised or decommissioned. The generation of self-signed certificates often lacks proper process rigor and introduces security risks such as an inability to revocate.
• Data: Medical devices often handle sensitive patient data, control critical functions, and operate within a regulated environment. Relying on self-signed device certificates for communication or authentication can severely undermine trust in the device’s security.
• Regulatory Mandate: Regulatory bodies like the FDA often scrutinize the cryptographic implementations in medical devices, and self-signed certificates increasingly do not meet the required standards for security and assurance, potentially leading to market submission rejections.

Key Lifecycle Management: A Marathon, Not a Sprint

Enterprise key lifecycle management involves established processes for generation, distribution, storage, rotation, revocation, and destruction, often managed by dedicated security teams and tools with relatively shorter device lifecycles.

For medical devices, key lifecycle management presents a more protracted and complex challenge:

• Extended Lifecycles: Managing keys for devices with 10+ year lifespans requires anticipating algorithm obsolescence and planning for potential key updates or migrations in the field. This necessitates cryptographic agility.
• Patching and Updates: Securely updating cryptographic libraries and rotating keys on a fleet of deployed medical devices can be significantly more challenging than updating enterprise servers. OTA update mechanisms must be robust and secure to prevent malicious interference.
• Revocation in Intermittent Connectivity: Devices might have intermittent or no direct network connectivity, making real-time revocation checks (OCSP) unreliable. Alternative revocation strategies, such as signed revocation lists stored on the device or shorter certificate validity, need consideration.
• Device Decommissioning: Securely destroying cryptographic keys on a medical device at the end of its lifecycle is crucial to prevent unauthorized access to residual data or device functionality. This process needs to be well-defined and potentially involve physical destruction or secure erasure methods.
• Forensic Considerations: In the event of a security incident, understanding the key lifecycle and the specific keys used by a device at a particular time is critical for forensic analysis.

Bridging the Gap: A Call for Specialized Expertise

The cryptographic landscape for medical devices demands a specialized approach that acknowledges the unique constraints and critical nature of these systems. IT operations teams in this sector need to:

• Develop Deep Understanding of Medical Device Security Requirements: Go beyond general IT security best practices and understand the specific regulatory landscape (e.g., FDA guidelines), threat models, and patient safety implications.
• Collaborate Closely with Engineering and Regulatory Teams: Cryptographic decisions must be integrated into the device design from the outset and aligned with regulatory requirements.
• Invest in Specialized Tools and Expertise: Enterprise-centric security tools may not be directly applicable to medical devices. Investing in tools and expertise tailored to embedded security and device lifecycle management is crucial.
• Embrace a Security-by-Design Philosophy: Cryptographic considerations must be baked into the device architecture from the beginning, rather than being bolted on as an afterthought.

Ignoring the distinct realities of securing medical devices can lead to vulnerabilities, regulatory non-compliance, and, most importantly, risks to patient safety. The long-term security, control, and regulatory compliance benefits of a well-managed private CA often make it the more strategic and secure choice.

If you’re looking to learn more about the technical nuances and ensure the security and integrity of the next generation of medical technologies, connect today with a trusted expert.

‍